K.K. Sonawane JUDGMENT
Sambhaji Shiwaji Shinde, J.
1. Heard.
2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith, and heard finally with the consent of the parties.
3. This Writ Petition is filed by the petitioner, under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, questioning the legality, propriety and correctness of the impugned order dated 21st September, 2016, passed by respondent No. 4 in File No. 2016/MAG/Externment/CR-01 and also the order passed by the appellate Authority i.e. respondent No. 2 to the extent of confirming the order of externment of the petitioner from Beed District, vide order dated 09.11.2016 in Appeal No. 125/2016.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the order of externment passed by respondent No. 4 is outcome of political vendetta inasmuch as the same is passed at the instance of the Guardian Minister of Beed District so as to ensure that the petitioner is not present in Parali [Vaijnath] Town during the period of elections of the Municipal Council. It is submitted that the FIR being Crime No. 273/2015 registered against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 354(A), 341 r/w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 25[3] of the Arms Act is filed at the instance of the Guardian Minister and it is clear indication that the said FIR is registered with false allegation so as to involve the petitioner only to gain political mileage in the election of Municipal Council Parali [Vaijnath]. It is submitted that the petitioner was elected as a member of the Municipal Council, Parali [Vaijnath] for the period from 2011 to 2016. He is also a Director of the Agriculture Produce Market Committee, Parali [Vaijnath] and he was also group leader of the Nationalist Congress Party.
5. The order passed by respondent No. 4 suffers from non-application of mind, same is cryptic and unsustainable in law. It is submitted that though the petitioner is acquitted from 6 crimes after full-fledged trial nevertheless without application of mind the proposal was submitted by the concerned Police Officer mentioning therein those 6 crimes from which the petitioner stands acquitted even before submitting proposal for externment by the concerned Police Officer. It is submitted that the alleged activities of the petitioner are within the jurisdiction of the Parali Vaijnath Police Station in City area, however, the petitioner was externed by respondent No. 4 from Beed, Parbhani, Latur, Osmanabad and Jalna Districts. Though the Appellate Authority has modified the order passed by respondent No. 4 to the extent of externing the petitioner from Parbhani, Latur, Osmanabad and Jalna Districts, nevertheless the Appellate Authority did not properly appreciate the contention of the petitioner that the order passed by respondent No. 4 stands vitiated due to non-application of mind, and therefore, the said should have been quashed in its entire by the Appellate Authority. It is submitted that respondent No. 4 did not follow the mandate of provisions of Section 56 (1) (a) and (b) of the Maharashtra Police Act, inasmuch as there is no elaborate reference to the in-camera statements, if any, recorded by respondent No. 4 Authority. Therefore, relying upon the pleadings/grounds taken in the Petition, annexures thereto and exposition of law by the Division Bench of the ........